boda wrote:From a moral standpoint, rebirth as a gentle herbivore would be superior, by human standards. A sheep doesn't have the capacity to wage war, destroy it's habitat, or become a serial killer. But on the other hand, a sheep doesn't have much capacity to acquire merit. Or to put it accurately, a sheep doesn't have the capacity to develop human merit. Everything is evaluated by human values, for humans. See how that works?

Being reborn a sheep, means we committed non-virtuous actions. A sheep can accumulate merit if it's exposed to dharma, no other way, how else? Sheeps can't meditate, can't offer much of anything, sheeps can't do much...

You're claiming that the only way to accumulate merit is exposure to dharma?

You know, if you want to generically questions religious narratives, there are million places to do it. I'm not sure why you think a forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism is a good place for short, mostly unqualified blanket dismissals of most things Buddhism-related, but it really isn't.

boda wrote:
From a moral standpoint, rebirth as a gentle herbivore would be superior, by human standards. A sheep doesn't have the capacity to wage war, destroy it's habitat, or become a serial killer. But on the other hand, a sheep doesn't have much capacity to acquire merit. Or to put it accurately, a sheep doesn't have the capacity to develop human merit. Everything is evaluated by human values, for humans. See how that works?

Well yes, much as an animal can only see things from their karmic viewpoint, we can only see things from ours. nonetheless, according to the teachings (well, most teachings) human beings are uniquely positioned for the spiritual path whereas animals are more occluded than we are, and so have far fewer opportunities to escape their own conditioning.

It's really as simple as that, claiming that nature is somehow virtuous or that ecological balance being maintained from killing is a moral good is just as anthropocentric - if not more- than what you are complaining about.

More anthropomorphism. I doubt animals care what you think about their honor.

Again, I'm not sure why you think ideas about ecological balance being equated with morality are somehow less anthropocentric than what we are talking about, animals have no notion of those things either.

"it must be coming from the mouthy mastermind of raunchy rapper, Johnny Dangerous”

You know, if you want to generically questions religious narratives, there are million places to do it. I'm not sure why you think a forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism is a good place for short, mostly unqualified blanket dismissals of most things Buddhism-related, but it really isn't.

Generically question religious narratives, and a blanket dismissal? Boomerang requested an overarching point and I tried to give an honest answer.

boda wrote:From a moral standpoint, rebirth as a gentle herbivore would be superior, by human standards. A sheep doesn't have the capacity to wage war, destroy it's habitat, or become a serial killer. But on the other hand, a sheep doesn't have much capacity to acquire merit. Or to put it accurately, a sheep doesn't have the capacity to develop human merit. Everything is evaluated by human values, for humans. See how that works?

Well yes, much as an animal can only see things from their karmic viewpoint, we can only see things from ours. nonetheless, according to the teachings (well, most teachings) human beings are uniquely positioned for the spiritual path whereas animals are more occluded than we are, and so have far fewer opportunities to escape their own conditioning.

What exactly is a karmic viewpoint? This is an important point I think.

claiming that nature is somehow virtuous or that ecological balance being maintained from killing is a moral good is just as anthropocentric - if not more- than what you are complaining about.

I'd say that people generally regard unnatural things as less virtuous, on the intuitive basis that unnatural things tend to put long established natural systems out of balance, and that can be life threatening in both the long term and the short. Also humans seem to have a strong and innate value for nature.

Regarding large scale ecosystems, we don't seem well equipped, in terms of the values we've come to possess as humans, to manage things well at that scale, not unlike our fellow critters.

If Odin's questions have been answered, perhaps boda's could be separated into another thread where they can be addressed without confusion.

"All the suffering of the lower realms, whatever difficulty and unhappiness we may experience as human beings, as well as every other possible suffering of the three realms of existence, have their origin in cherishing ourselves more than others."

What exactly is a karmic viewpoint? This is an important point I think.

Karmic vision - i.e. what we project as the world "outside" ourselves dependent on our Karma, and the realm/reality/plane/whatever you want to call it in which we exists as humans. Buddhism generally does not acknowledge the capability of science to arrive at such moral decision-making as it normally does - using inference based on a perception of an objective reality. Therefore, the notion that we are essentially trapped by our Karma is central to Buddhadharma, and if one is a practitioner, one trusts the Buddha on these points above other sources - such as moral arguments made on the basis of ecological balance being equivalent with right action.

I'd say that people generally regard unnatural things as less virtuous, on the intuitive basis that unnatural things tend to put long established natural systems out of balance, and that can be life threatening in both the long term and the short. Also humans seem to have a strong and innate value for nature.

Regarding large scale ecosystems, we don't seem well equipped, in terms of the values we've come to possess as humans, to manage things well at that scale, not unlike our fellow critters.

On one of these points, there is no such things as "nature" separate from sentient beings that can be quantified in order to make moral judgements. Nor does the idea of "natural" or "unnatural" phenomena hold much weight outside of the very anthropocentric views you are complaining about. On the second point, Dharma teachings actually acknowledge our blindness, and the blindness of animals, but claims they are separate types of blindness..so to speak.

"it must be coming from the mouthy mastermind of raunchy rapper, Johnny Dangerous”

Johnny Dangerous wrote:Karmic vision - i.e. what we project as the world "outside" ourselves dependent on our Karma, and the realm/reality/plane/whatever you want to call it in which we exists as humans. Buddhism generally does not acknowledge the capability of science to arrive at such moral decision-making as it normally does - using inference based on a perception of an objective reality.

I think this may be a prime point of contention. Moral reasoning is based on values, not on a perception of an objective reality, or a perception of a projected reality for that matter.

Therefore, the notion that we are essentially trapped by our Karma is central to Buddhadharma, and if one is a practitioner, one trusts the Buddha on these points above other sources - such as moral arguments made on the basis of ecological balance being equivalent with right action.

We know now more than ever how limited our perception is, because we've developed devices and theories that indicate how very little we can perceive of everything that goes on around us. We can also see the limits of our intelligence, reasoning, and values.

Did the Buddha have human values? If so, human values were the basis of his moral reasoning. If not, what values were the basis of his moral reasoning?

boda wrote:I'd say that people generally regard unnatural things as less virtuous, on the intuitive basis that unnatural things tend to put long established natural systems out of balance, and that can be life threatening in both the long term and the short. Also humans seem to have a strong and innate value for nature.

Regarding large scale ecosystems, we don't seem well equipped, in terms of the values we've come to possess as humans, to manage things well at that scale, not unlike our fellow critters.

On one of these points, there is no such things as "nature" separate from sentient beings that can be quantified in order to make moral judgements. Nor does the idea of "natural" or "unnatural" phenomena hold much weight outside of the very anthropocentric views you are complaining about.

I clearly wrote "people generally regard...," and "humans seem to have..." My complaint is ascribing human attributes (such as values) to that which is non-human.

boda wrote:
I think this may be a prime point of contention. Moral reasoning is based on values, not on a perception of an objective reality, or a perception of a projected reality for that matter.

The idea that an action is virtuous because it preserves ecological balance is definitely based on the perception of an objective reality separate from the beings involved, which can be known through inference.

T
We know now more than ever how limited our perception is, because we've developed devices and theories that indicate how very little we can perceive of everything that goes on around us. We can also see the limits of our intelligence, reasoning, and values.

Kind of irrelevant to the discussion, but sure, in this many philosophies are on the same page.

Did the Buddha have human values? If so, human values were the basis of his moral reasoning. If not, what values were the basis of his moral reasoning?

The values of Buddhas - i.e. awakened beings. If you don't believe that, great, call it like it is. He makes it abundantly clear though that the values of Dharma are not the same as values of the world, over and over again.

I clearly wrote "people generally regard...," and "humans seem to have..." My complaint is ascribing human attributes (such as values) to that which is non-human.

Right, but you seem to not get that *all value systems* by definition involve anthropocentrism - as you've already acknowledged in the previous post. The difference here is whether or not one accepts the Buddha's words and teachings on the matter. If one does not, that's great, but let's not beat around the bush about what it is. Let's not pretend there is more intellectual rigor behind an abstract idea like a thing being morally defensible because it is ecologically sound - that also is an anthropocentric notion. All our ideas of what is ecologically sound come from -human- values,from -human- perceptions of the environment.

"it must be coming from the mouthy mastermind of raunchy rapper, Johnny Dangerous”

The merit of maintaining ecological balance intenrionally is clearly established by the fact that one vow of a monk is not to cut down trees.

All of the arguments of boda seem to be triggered by evaluation of animals in buddha dharma as having less merits and less opportunites. Am I right, boda? So questions like based on what can we say that and so forth would not arise if buddha had said may be it is a imams who have more merits so we should aspire to be born as herbivores animals bevaue we maintain ecological balance then unlike inferior humans who damage things.

Is it difficult to trust the Buddha than silly scientists or materialists or whoever that deny karma?

I don't know the Buddha, any silly scientists, or philosophical materialists.

Obviously the point is to see it oneself than believe but it helps in the beginning.

How does it help?

I do not know if there is a simple way to quote specific sentences except having to elaborately delete undesired materials so here we go anyways.

Believing helps in the beginning to accumulate merits. Again that is when you assume things. And merits open up understanding of the karma. That simple. Under the assumption it is a very self consistent logical system. So animals don't have merits to understand karma either in that life.

Yes go ahead and find teachers who can give direct introductions, who can teach something as complex as Yantra yoga. He is the Buddha.

There are many materialists, silly scientists, etc. all around. One would have to be blind not to know one.

The merit of maintaining ecological balance intentionally is clearly established by the fact that one vow of a monk is not to cut down trees.

Stewardship of the environment isn't the question though, the question is whether or not killing would be seen as positive because it maintains ecological balance and keep systems going. Clearly from a Buddhist perspective, the answer is no, killing is not seen as positive in this context.

Lets mention again, the "superiority" or "inferiority" of animals vs. humans in Buddhism is purely based around relative spiritual capacity, ultimately all beings are equally precious an should be treated that way to the very best of our abilities.

Not to harp on this, but this is a place where brushing up in basic Dharma concepts comes in handy, when people disregard them(for example not understanding what i've written above - the difference between relative capacity and actual 'worthiness' of beings), we go around and around because someone misinterprets what a Buddhist text or saying means by "higher" or "lower".

"it must be coming from the mouthy mastermind of raunchy rapper, Johnny Dangerous”

I concur totally, Johnny!
With any system you first understand without deviation what they are saying then one can compare. With buddha dharma it is easier because of the consistency of Buddha's words and living lineage especially for basic concepts. So it is like you first understand what set is in a mathematics class clearly. If you do not you don't understand anything after that. when it comes to physics say no one questions the scientist as a beginner one may have ideas but one doesn't have guts to question him. This should perhaps be more applicable to dharma once one sees there are people who enter Samadhi at will and mind you that is nothing in the dharma. Perhaps it is time for masters to show to silly folks like us the magical powers so people have no doubts anymore. Back in Buddha's time no one questioned these powers thus buddha deliberately told not to emphasize these as people will look for who is more powerful than who. But now most people don't believe it. With one shot of yogi flying every will be convinced that we ordinary people don't know shit at all and should perhaps show some respect. Check this link below serkong Rinpoche's biography. Man seriously who the heck scientist or philosopher can die consciously? Who even bothers asserting inhaling others negative karma. They don't even have such concepts. Who can perform yamantak pratiharya except the Buddha?
What civilization has even imagined someone of being able to speak in same voice across all distances? Now the Buddha was of the past but just find a Sangha that has masters of Samadhi and there are many in buddhadharma and guess what once again this is nothing. And by Samadhi think of 4th Dhyana one literally goes breathless.

boda wrote:From a moral standpoint, rebirth as a gentle herbivore would be superior, by human standards. A sheep doesn't have the capacity to wage war, destroy it's habitat, or become a serial killer. But on the other hand, a sheep doesn't have much capacity to acquire merit. Or to put it accurately, a sheep doesn't have the capacity to develop human merit. Everything is evaluated by human values, for humans. See how that works?

Being reborn a sheep, means we committed non-virtuous actions. A sheep can accumulate merit if it's exposed to dharma, no other way, how else? Sheeps can't meditate, can't offer much of anything, sheeps can't do much...

You're claiming that the only way to accumulate merit is exposure to dharma?

boda wrote:I think this may be a prime point of contention. Moral reasoning is based on values, not on a perception of an objective reality, or a perception of a projected reality for that matter.

The idea that an action is virtuous because it preserves ecological balance is definitely based on the perception of an objective reality separate from the beings involved, which can be known through inference.

I can't imagine how you've come to this conclusion. Can you explain?

I don't think that I need to explain why a stable enviornment or ecological balace is 'good' or of value to humans.

boda wrote:Did the Buddha have human values? If so, human values were the basis of his moral reasoning. If not, what values were the basis of his moral reasoning?

The values of Buddhas - i.e. awakened beings. If you don't believe that, great, call it like it is. He makes it abundantly clear though that the values of Dharma are not the same as values of the world, over and over again.

Okay, so if the Eightfold Path is any indication of what enlightened moral values are they include no lying (honesty), no killing (life), etc. Basic human values. A common theme in major religions is to place more value on the spiritual than the material. This too is all too human. Quite distinctly human in fact.

boda wrote:I clearly wrote "people generally regard...," and "humans seem to have..." My complaint is ascribing human attributes (such as values) to that which is non-human.

Right, but you seem to not get that *all value systems* by definition involve anthropocentrism - as you've already acknowledged in the previous post.

I acknowledge it but I don't get it? I must be very difficult to converse with.

All value systems, including the value systems of all species? Not all species have the capacity for anthropocentrism.

The difference here is whether or not one accepts the Buddha's words and teachings on the matter. If one does not, that's great, but let's not beat around the bush about what it is. Let's not pretend there is more intellectual rigor behind an abstract idea like a thing being morally defensible because it is ecologically sound - that also is an anthropocentric notion. All our ideas of what is ecologically sound come from -human- values,from -human- perceptions of the environment.

Does the Buddha teach that carnivores generate bad karma or whatever by killing and eating their pray?

Again my complaint is attributing human values to species that do not possess our values. Odin mentioned the thing about a thing being morally defensible because it is ecologically sound.

Boomerang wrote:In the sravaka tradition, Angulimala was a serial killer who became an arhat.

There is a Mahayana Angulimala Sutra too, it bleongs, strangely enough, to the Tathagatagarbha series, as it emphasises the point that all beings (serial murderers included) also maintain the capacity to reach enlightenment.

boda wrote:That is one bizarre story.

Angulimala had the Buddha himself as his teacher, even you could reach enlightenment in one lifetime if you had a Buddha as a teacher. Nothing bizarre about that.

"My religion is not deceiving myself."Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

Angulimala had the Buddha himself as his teacher, even you could reach enlightenment in one lifetime if you had a Buddha as a teacher. Nothing bizarre about that.

That's not the bizarre part. It's apparently not the moral of the story either.

The bizarre part is when studying with a guru, Angulimala's fellow students became jealous of his aptitude, yet Angulimala couldn't even do simple problem solving well. The guru asked Angulimala for 1k righthand fingers as a gift. Five fingers per hand = 200 low caste villager victims. But genius boy killed 999, only taking one righthand finger per victim. And he was the bright one in the class?

It's also bizarre what an insanely high premium is put on familial genes. Matricide, according to the story, is unredeemable. Kill your mom and no enlightenment for you, even with Buddha as a teacher. You can kill a thousand other moms and you still got a shot at enlightenment, but kill your own and it's hell for eternity. Or maybe it's just if your mom is Brahmin? Anyway, the moral of the story is that if your guru asks you for a thousand right hand finger, tell him to go **** himself.

Grigoris wrote:Angulimala had the Buddha himself as his teacher, even you could reach enlightenment in one lifetime if you had a Buddha as a teacher. Nothing bizarre about that.

That's not the bizarre part. It's apparently not the moral of the story either.

The moral of the story is that the Tathagatagarbha cannot be tainted and that even mass-murdering lunatics can achieve liberation due to the aforementioned fact..

"My religion is not deceiving myself."Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde